With the enrollment of HB 430, Virginia has made some interesting and potentially significant changes to it’s property tax procedures. Some of the key changes are:

Affordable Housing:

the duly authorized real estate assessor shall consider:

1. The contract rent and the impact of applicable rent restrictions;

2. The actual operating expenses and expenditures and the impact of any such additional expenses or expenditures; and

3. Restrictions on the transfer of title or other restraints on alienation of the real property.

Assessment Information:

Upon request of any taxpayer or his duly authorized representative, the assessing officer of the governing body shall make available information regarding the methodology employed in the calculation of a property’s assessed value to include the capitalization rate used to determine the property’s value, a list of comparable properties or sales figures considered in the valuation, and any other market surveys, formulas, matrices, or other factors considered in determining the value of the property.

Appeal Board Qualifications:

On any board or panel thereof considering appeals of commercial or multi-family residential property in a locality with a population exceeding 100,000, 30 percent of the members of such board or panel shall be commercial or multi-family residential real estate appraisers who are licensed and certified by the Virginia Real Estate Appraiser Board

Assessment Increases:

In any case before the board concerning a taxpayer’s complaint in which the commissioner of the revenue or other local assessing officer requests the board to increase the assessment after the taxpayer files an appeal to the board on a commercial, multifamily residential, or industrial property, the commissioner or other officer shall provide the taxpayer notice of the request not less than 14 days prior to the hearing of the board. Except as provided herein, if the taxpayer contests the requested increase, the assessor shall either withdraw the request or shall provide the board an appraisal performed by an independent contractor who is licensed and certified by the Virginia Real Estate Appraiser Board

Head on over via the link above, print the bill or save the PDF and place it in your VA file. It’s bound to come in handy at some point.

Indiana has made a long (and I mean long) list of changes to the to property tax valuation and assessment procedures and requirements.

LSA Document #09-576(F) calls for changes to personal property reporting and valuation, obsolescence, township and county assessor duties and more.

Well, my alerts started pouring in yesterday from Twitter and email regarding the Georgia Senate’s unanimous approval of S.B. 346. The bill is being touted as major reform to the state’s property tax system. The summary of the bill on the General Assembly’s website states:

“A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to revenue and taxation, so as to revise comprehensively provisions regarding ad valorem taxes; to change certain provisions regarding ad valorem tax returns of taxpayers; to require annual notice regardless of changes; to provide for uniform notice forms and uniform appeal forms; to provide for powers, duties, and responsibilities of the state revenue commissioner; to provide for powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Department of Revenue regarding training of certain local tax officials and staff;to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.”

Most of the news points to the portions of the bill that call for extending the deadline to file an appeal to 45 days, instead of the current 30 days and the requirement for counties to issue annual valuation notices. Maybe it’s just me, but I do not find either of these changes to be extraordinary or innovative. I certainly wouldn’t consider them comprehensive reform.

The two portions of the bill that I do find interesting are the sections dealing with changes to appeal arbitration and what information the assessor’s must consider when arriving at their valuations.

Binding Arbitration:

Georgia previously allowed for a taxpayer to elect arbitration, but this bill significantly changes the mechanics of arbitration. The most notable changes are that the arbitration is now binding, the taxpayer is now required to submit an appraisal within 45 days of the assessor’s response to the appeal, and there will now be a single arbitrator, either agreed upon by the taxpayer and county or appointed by a judge.

Distressed Sales:

The bill introduces new language regarding the information the assessor’s must consider when arriving at their valuation. The new language states:

“(.1) ‘Arm’s length, bona fide sale’ means a transaction carried out by unrelated or unaffiliated parties, as by a willing buyer and a willing seller, each acting in his or her own self-interest, including a bona fide distress sale or sale at public auction.”

“(2.1) ‘Distress sale’ means a transaction which has occurred in good faith without fraud or deceit and includes, but is not limited to, a foreclosure, short sale, or bank sale.”

If the bill passes the House it will be interesting to see how this will work in reality.

Overall, in my opinion, this bill constitutes tweaks far more than reform.

Kansas offers property tax exemptions relating to “commercial/industrial machinery and equipment” that could be very beneficial to taxpayers owning or leasing personal property. They are as follows: 

Commercial/Industrial Machinery and Equipment Exemption:

Any qualified purchase or lease of machinery and equipment made after June 30, 2006 is exempt from property taxation in Kansas. Of course, there are a few clarifications to keep in mind. The term “Acquired” does not include stock purchases, mergers, reorganizations or other internal transfers. However, it does include transfers of property into Kansas after June 30^th for the purposes of expansion, replacement or creation of a new business. 

Qualified Purchase is defined as: 

a purchase of commercial and industrial machinery and equipment for fair and valuable consideration where such machinery and equipment is physically transferred to the purchaser to be used in the purchaser’s business or trade.

Qualified Lease is defined as: 

a lease of commercial and industrial machinery and equipment for not less than 30 days for fair and valuable consideration where such machinery and equipment is physically transferred to the lessee to be used in the lessee’s business or trade.

$1,500 Exemption for Commercial Equipment:

Commercial/Industrial equipment “items” with a “retail cost when new” (RCWN) of $1,500 or less are exempt from property taxation. Again, there are two things to pay close attention to when determining whether or not the equipment is eligible for the exemption:

Retail cost when new:

Retail cost when new (RCWN): The Kansas Constitution requires the valuation process for machinery and equipment in the “Commercial” subclass begin with the “retail cost when new”. For purposes of personal property taxation, RCWN is the total amount a consumer would pay to acquire new property in order to use it to produce income over a period of years in a commercial or industrial setting. Retail cost when new is not the used sale price, and it is not the wholesale or manufacturer’s cost. It is the dollar amount an item would cost a consumer when the item is purchased new at the retail level of trade. For purposes of personal property taxation, the term “retail cost when new” does not include sales tax or freight and installation charges that are separate and readily discernible from the set retail price.

 What is considered an “Item”:

For purposes of the $1500 exemption an “item” is generally going to be a single line item as it is reported on a rendition. Exceptions to this general rule are: 

1. If the line item represents a group of like goods that can be used independently and they have the same or similar cost, the line item is actually several “items”. The RCWN of each “item” may qualify for the exemption. 

2. In that an “item” is the smallest quantity that may be used independently, one pen, one sheet of paper or one rubber band represents a material and supply “item”. The RCWN of each “item” that can be independently used may qualify for the exemption. Materials and supplies are classified under the “Other” subclass of personal property. Personal property in the “Other” subclass is listed on schedule 6 of the rendition. See the “Other Personal Property Not Elsewhere Classified” section in this guide for information on valuing materials and supplies.

More information on these exemptions can be found in the 2010 Personal Property Valuation Guide,  K.S.A. 201 and K.S.A. 79-223.

Senate Bill 816, effective January 1, 2010, could result in the imposition of significant penalties on unwary taxpayers for failing to report changes in control or ownership of legal entities in California. It imposes a new, automatic 10% penalty for failure to file a change-in-ownership statement to the State Board of Equalization (SBE) within 45 days. The penalty will be 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year reflecting the change in ownership. Previously, the acquiring entity was required to file a change-in-ownership statement with the SBE. However, no penalty was imposed for not filing, unless the SBE specifically requested such a statement. SB816 changes all that. Now taxpayers will incur the penalty if they do not file within 45 days, regardless if the SBE requests the statement or not. If the SBE requests the statement, taxpayers must respond within 45 days, even if no change took place, to avoid incurring the penalty.

The Kansas Court of Appeals recently reversed a decision by the District Court that set aside the opinion of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals. At the center of the case was the valuation methodology employed by the taxing jurisdiction’s appraiser. The Court of Appeals found that the jurisdiction’s expert witness not only erred, but also violated USPAP by valuing the various segments of the property and summing the individual values to arrive at an overall valuation conclusion. The court relied upon USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e):

“Pursuant to USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e) (2001), an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of the assemblage of the various estates or component parts of a property and refrain from valuing the whole solely by adding together the individual values of the various estates or component parts. Although the value of the whole may be equal to the sum of the separate estates or parts, it also may be greater or less than the sum of such estates or parts. Therefore, the value of the whole must be tested by reference to appropriate data and supported by an appropriate analysis of such data.”

The Court goes on to state:

“There is no question that Kubert violated USPAP Rule 1-4(e). In executing each of his approaches to value, Kubert segmented the property, valued each segment individually, and then added the values to get his final valuation.”

The case can be found here.

As property tax professionals we rely on market information to support our cases for reducing assessments. Of course, all information is not created equal. Now, more than ever, it is extremely important to dig deep when it comes to the information gathering process.

We are starting to see a trickle of transactions (both sales and leases) after the severe drought we have been experiencing. However, many property owners are being creative (or desperate) in order to sell or lease their properties. This is where the necessity of proper research comes into play. Knowing as much about a transaction as possible will paint a more accurate picture of the market and ultimately valuations.

When researching sales it is important to keep in mind that many property owners have found themselves in a bind, to say the least. Almost $165 billion in commercial loans are coming due this year as landlords struggle with rental rate and occupancy declines and higher cap rates. This is creating problems with refinancing and/or keeping current on loans. Defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies are plentiful right now and in the opinion of many industry professionals this trend will continue into 2010. So, when researching sales it is very important to know the conditions of the sale and the motivations of the participants.

When it comes to leases, landlords are getting creative in order to maintain occupancies or fill vacancies. Free rent periods, reduced rent and significant tenant improvement allowances are just a few of the many concessions being offered to tenants. These concessions are important because they affect effective rent.

The point being that what appears to be the deal on the surface may be something quite different underneath.

In the recent decision of Huang v. Department of Revenue The Oregon Tax Court denied a taxpayer’s request for a reduction in the property tax valuation of a motel due to the taxpayer’s failure to prove the valuation of intangible business property. 

The taxpayer purchased a motel and the sales agreement allocated a portion of the purchase price to “land and buildings” and a portion to “Trade Name and Goodwill”. The taxpayer sought to have the ”Trade Name and Goodwill”  portion excluded from the purchase price in order to arrive at the value for property tax purposes. The Tax Court found that: 

“Taxpayers’ actions and Huang’s testimony fail to provide an explanation for why the Sales Agreement allocated the sales price among ‘Land and Buildings’ and ‘Trade [N]ame and Goodwill’” 

In fact, the actions of the taxpayer both prior to the sale and subsequently seem to indicate the trade name had minimal, if any, value (they changed the name of the hotel after the sale) or that goodwill was properly valued (Haung testified that he did not know the manner in which the seller operated the business prior to the sale).

Two fairly recent actions taken by state legislatures have “addressed” (I use the term very loosely) the effects of foreclosures on property tax assessments. 

Tennessee recently enacted H.B. 2175, which states: 

“In a year of reappraisal, if the number of foreclosures is of a significant number in any area or neighborhood, the assessor of property may recognize the effects of such foreclosures on the values of other properties located within the affected area or neighborhood.” 

Texas passed H.B.1038 stating: 

“Notwithstanding Section 1.04(7)(C), in determining the market value of a residence homestead, the chief appraiser may not exclude from consideration the value of other residential property that is in the same neighborhood as the residence homestead being appraised and would otherwise be considered in appraising the residence homestead because the other residential property: (1) was sold at a foreclosure sale conducted in any of the three years preceding the tax year in which the residence homestead is being appraised and was comparable at the time of sale based on relevant characteristics with other residence homesteads in the same neighborhood; or (2) has a market value that has declined because of a declining economy.” 

I bring these up because, although I think they are fairly weak statements when it comes to addressing the current economy’s effects on assessments and property taxes, I think that they are examples of tools to keep in our pockets when it comes to protesting excessive tax assessments. 

The way I see it is that, even though both of these bills specifically address foreclosures and the TX bill specifically addresses resident homesteads, taxpayers should apply these bills to virtually any property type. It’s not as though the residential sector is the only sector of real estate that is in turmoil. If foreclosures are going to be addressed, then it is only reasonable to address distressed assets, bankruptcies, etc. Just about every type of real estate is feeling pain these days and tax assessments should be addressed accordingly.

The Texas Legislature has enacted H.B. 3612, establishing a three year pilot program which allows taxpayers an alternative to appealing Appraisal Review Board determinations to district court. The program applies to properties with an appraised value of $1 million or more in Bexar, Cameron, Dallas, El Paso, Harris, Tarrant and Travis counties. The program is effective January 1, 2010.